One of the great disappointments of the Prime Ministership of Yingluck Shinawatra is her unwillingness, or inability, to put in place any meaningful reform of Thailand’s lèse-majesté law. Outrageous prison sentences continue to be handed out against those who have exercised their right of freedom of political expression and most of those sentenced prior to her election continue to suffer in prison. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk is the latest victim of this obscene legal abuse.

Lèse-majesté is a dark stain on Thailand’s—and Yingluck’s—reputation.

So, what is to be done? There is no easy answer. As one of the most informed commentators on lèse-majesté, David Streckfuss, recently wrote:

The real question is what to do about it. I am really stuck on this. The Campaign for the Reform of Article 112 has been quiet for half a year now. …Numerous letters have been signed and sent to the Thai government on the issue. I actually don’t know what to do or say any more about it. The EU delegation in Thailand has done its bit. Embassies have spoken out. External pressure is useful and morally necessary. But what to do now? (Comment 42.1)

One line of argument that has emerged in the flurry of debate in recent weeks is that non-Thai journalists and academics must lead the campaign, exposing the specifics of lèse-majesté brutality and challenging the royalist mythology that underpins it.

In some respects I agree. Academics and journalists have an important role to play in keeping Thailand’s lèse-majesté repression in the international spotlight. They can also make an important contribution to opening up a frank discussion about the role of the monarchy in Thai politics, a discussion that the lèse-majesté law is, in part, designed to repress. New Mandala has made a useful contribution on both these fronts, and I am proud of that.

But I also have my doubts. I am uncomfortable about the claim that non-Thai commentators have a central role to play in the lèse-majesté reform campaign. I certainly don’t buy the puerile nationalism that argues that foreigners have no right to engage in critical debate about Thai politics or its institutions. Thailand is much too connected with the world for that old line to be credible.

However, there are more substantial objections.

My first reservation is practical. There are good reasons why many academics and journalists working on Thailand feel constrained about what they can publish. Sometimes their caution frustrates me but, on reflection, I respect it. As an established academic with a secure job I have been able to say and write things about the monarchy that I would not expect other colleagues—in different circumstances—to say or write. I would not have been willing to be so outspoken as a more junior, and less experienced, scholar. The careers of journalists and academics who work on Thailand are dependent on ongoing access to it. The idea that they should give up that access in order to speak truth to power is noble, but it is unrealistic.

The career of ex-Reuters journalist Andrew MacGregor Marshall is telling. Marshall has been a very strong voice calling for more journalistic frankness on the Thai monarchy. But, as has become clear in the discussion generated by my previous post on this issue, he was not able to publish the sort of commentary that he now regards as obligatory while he was working as a journalist for Reuters (either in Bangkok or Singapore) . The fact that someone so passionate about the cause was unable to publish openly critical commentary while working for Reuters should prompt some realism, and respect, when considering the work of those who continue to face a range of professional, personal and legal constraints.

My second reservation is more about strategy. An elected government like that of Yingluck Shinawatra will only move on lèse-majesté when the electoral cost-benefit ratio shifts in favour of reform. Quite simply, at present it is not an electoral winner. The calls for reform within Thailand are certainly gaining momentum, but I have little doubt that the vast majority of voters are relatively comfortable with the law in its current form. One of the unpleasant aspects of Thailand’s electoral culture is a rather nonchalant approach to human rights. Don’t forget the electoral popularity of Thaksin’s brutal war on drugs.

The king is not universally revered, but he is a potent figure in the panoplies of power that many Thais seek to tap into. Potency can be both protective and dangerous. For many, I suspect, it is no surprise that those who mess with potency end up in serious trouble.

The key to reform is to shift the electoral balance. Western commentators can bang on about false consciousness, brain washing and the power of fairy tales for as long as we want, but reform of lèse-majesté will only come when there the government feels confident to act without prompting a backlash that will cost it votes. That doesn’t mean waiting until a majority of voters come to favour reform, but it will require a significant shift in the terms of debate and a reduction in its intensity. I doubt that can be achieved during the reign of the present king. Vajiralongkorn’s much less potent reign holds out a much better prospect for reform.

It is useful to reflect on the potential role of non-Thai commentators in contributing to the momentum of reform within Thailand. At present, Western commentary on lèse-majesté speaks to the converted. I doubt it plays any meaningful role in shifting opinions among the majority who are less concerned about it.

In fact, I think Western critics of the law need to contemplate the possibility that our efforts may have the opposite effect. Royalism combines with nationalism to form a potent anti-Western mix and I think there is a risk that Western attempts to drive reform will strengthen the hand of these who defend the status quo.

Just as the “self-lampooning” ultra-royalist Tul Sitthisomwong is a wonderful asset for the anti-lèse-majesté cause (and it was a master stroke on the part of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand to give him a stage) there is a real possibility that the ultra-royalists in Thailand applaud every time Western critics of the king air their views.

As we consider our responses to the awful challenge of the lèse-majesté law, we need to be careful that we don’t provide the Thai ultra-royalists and nationalists with exactly the image of the interfering and insensitive Westerner that they are seeking.

Share this:

55 Comments

‘…there is a real possibility that the ultra-royalists in Thailand applaud every time Western critics of the king air their views.’

Not trying to nit-pick, Mr Walker, but you might more properly have said ‘critics of the misused LM law, article 112′. So termed, it would be something quite different. So termed, there remains a moral duty to criticise it, and any applause of the ultra-royalists be damned.

Indo Ojek,
The answer to your question as to why it’s your moral duty to question LM can be found in a small poem by Martin Niemoeller. “First they came”………… Injustice is injustice wherever it is found.

Of course, but that’s not really what the nit picking of Marcus was about. The nit picking was really an unfair bludgeoning carried over from callous misinterpretation of the previous tolerating intolerance post – into this entry, which further elaborated on Walker’s position. Where injustice begins and ends is not the purpose of this post, but, immaturely, it seems to become that for those with personal bents against what context they find themselves in.

Walkers’ “practical” argument against foreigners speaking against lese majeste could be applied to virtually every attempt in human history to advance or defend the cause of human rights. I’m sure there were lots of journalists in and outside Germany in the 1930’s who thought the same way.

If a cause is already popular,who needs a free and scrupulous press to defend it? Could if be that the kind of “practical” journalism described by Walker is exactly what has produced generations of political parrots and literary eunuchs among so many Thai journalists.

Health warning: I must not assume my own epiphany over LM in Thailand has been replicated in all Thais (paraphrase of someone else’s Facebook comment)

Andrew Walker’s article is useful but begs a few questions.

Just who has been making the claim that non-Thai journalists must lead the campaign (against LM)? Two paragraphs later this reservation of Andrew’s has morphed into whether or not non-Thai commentators have a central role to play in the LM reform campaign.

I would say “no” to the first (and I suspect it of being an Aunt Sally) but “yes” to the second in the sense that a central role alongside progressive Thais and at their invitation is a positive step forward.
It is no doubt true that western commentary by and large “speaks to the converted”, but this group includes converted Thais such as journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk who in turn is more than capable of converting other Thais. (I sincerely hope that Andrew wasn’t thinking only of westerners when he talked of the converted.) Pravit has called Andrew McGregor Marshall (AMcM) “a true friend of Thai democracy.”

In talking about the succession Andrew states “Vajiralongkorn’s much less potent reign holds out a much better prospect for reform.” I wouldn’t be too sure, at least in the short term. Many say that the current rise in LM cases is to prepare the ground for anticipated difficulties after Bhumibol has departed. It could get vicious. That is why AMcG’s call for the FCCT to wake up and have robust procedures in place before the event is so timely.

At the recent EU meeting in Bangkok on “Reconciliation and Freedom of Expression” Sulak Sivaraksa was asked what kind of international support was it that managed to get his LM charge dismissed in 1984, even though the public prosecutor said “We have sufficient evidence for the case and we do not withdraw it because the accused is innocent. We have to do so because of other reasons which cannot be disclosed.”

His answer intimated that it was subtle behind the scenes pressure that worked in his case. He worried that the current more “full on” approach being taken in the case of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk might prove to be counterproductive. In other words, the 1984 approach might be better.

This seems in essence what Andrew Walker is arguing. Does he really want to stop the clock in this manner?

This is a far more intelligent article than Andrew Walker’s previous effort on the same subject, but I fear he is still completely missing the point.

Whatever their views may be on the best way to achieve saner enforcement of Article 112, journalists have a professional obligation to do their best to report developments in Thailand in an accurate and impartial way. If they are unable to do so as a result of Thai law, they have a professional obligation to say that in their reports.

By choosing not to tell the truth, and not to be honest about the fact they are giving a partial and slanted account of Thai politics, many foreign journalists in Thailand are breaching basic journalistic ethics.

I’m intrigued that Andrew Walker seems to regard me as “a campaigner” who wants to publish “openly critical commentary” of the monarchy. I am a journalist who wants to report accurately and honestly on Thailand’s history and politics, and that requires me to seek out and publish the facts about the events of 1945, 1976, 2006 etc, the tensions over the succession, and so on. Reporting honestly on these issues is not “virulent anti-royal fundamentalism”. It is what journalists are supposed to do.

I don’t know of any other country in the world in which foreign journalists are so obediently censoring themselves and failing to be honest with their readers and viewers about this self-censorship.

Does Andrew think that the foreign media should start being more tactful in their coverage of North Korea, so that the North Korean people can make their own decisions in their own time about what can be said and what cannot be said? It is a ludicrous argument.

Because I understand the predicament journalists in Thailand find themselves in, I have suggested that foreign media put a “health warning” at the start of their reports, making clear they are operating in a climate of extreme censorship that prevents them telling the full story. In this way, journalists who want to continue working in Thailand can come closer to honouring their professional obligations while avoiding becoming entangled in a lese majeste case.

If anybody has sensible objections to this suggestion I would be delighted to hear them.

On the theory that LM is being used a a forewarning to protect the future monarch, it sounds plausible, but without a breakdown of the type of things the authorities are choosing to prosecute its hard to know if the theory is correct.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which members of the monarchy the charges in recent years mainly relate to?
I could also ask what were the substance of the ‘slights’ on the monarchy members, but that might be pushing it a bit too far given the LM laws (and AW’s new found pragmatism)

The question if foreign journalists can make a decisive contribution depends on the exact definition on “contribution to what”. The LM issue means very different things to different groups of actors, hence, contributions by foreign journalists must be evaluated against this background.

1. To many foreign commentators, LM is about
the right of freedom of expression, as a major building bloc of a liberal democracy. Therefore, the rising number of convictions and the lack of proportion in sentences is seen as a failure of Thai democracy to live up to international (human rights) standards.
This view is widely shared by (mostly younger) freedom of expression activists. Maybe Andrew Walker talks about this group as the “already converted”, with “converted” referring to the international human rights philosophy.
2. To royalist stalwarts, LM is about the future of the monarchy. Harsh sentences are supposed to deter attempts to overhaul the political order. In effect, royalists turn every conversation about lèse majesté (or charter change) into a referendum over His Majesty.
3. Anti-royalist activists campaign against LM for exactly this reason: because it is has been made into a symbolic proxy, and attacking it offers several advantages: to wrap the attack on the monarchy into a campaign for human rights, legitimized by international conventions, supported by international academics, embassies and media, carried out it in the anonymity of the web, and most importantly, ideal to provoke royalist stalwarts into overreaction that is devastating for the legitimacy of the monarchy.
4. Judges and political decision makers need to maneuver this terrain. Hyped up as a symbol for the monarchy, no political actor can afford to alienate his coalition by failing to act. As long as the discursive link between LM and “defending the monarchy” is widely shared, it would be political suicide to champion the campaign for reform.
5. The Pheua Thai government is trapped between a rock and a hard place. Not being tough on LM allows its opponents to manufacture a pretext for another overthrow. Being to complacent alienates civil society, the international community and most importantly the red shirt movement. Hence, the Yingluck government tries to duck and cover on the issue in order to be able to stay in power.
6. For the powers that be, in Dubai and in Thailand, LM is the proof and seal that both sides hang on to the Brunei deal. Wavering on the issue would endanger the fragile arrangement to jointly manage the succession. Accordingly, flaring up the debate on LM is a way to torpedo this arrangement.

The list goes on, but I think my point became clear: LM means very different things for different groups. To answer the question “what good does international journalists campaigning against LM abuse do” needs to be assessed against the background of the political struggle in Thailand. As in all societies, different actors with different priorities but compatible objectives may join forces in a coalition to reform LM, while others band together in blocking any attempt to do so. Foreign actors will be part of this political landscape, and their impact or lack thereof depends on the balance of power between these camps.

Hence, there is no need for “tactical restraint” as Andrew Walker suggest, but neither a “moral obligation to engage” as Andrew McGregor Marshall insists. It is a political struggle that everybody needs to be aware of, and engage at one own risk.

This is a very intelligent contribution, but it neglects one key point: foreign journalists in Thailand can choose the extent they want to be engaged in a political struggle over 112, but whatever they decide does not alter the fact that they have a responsibility to their audience to report the reality of what is happening in 21st century Thailand.

My second reservation is more about strategy. An elected government like that of Yingluck Shinawatra will only move on lèse-majesté when the electoral cost-benefit ratio shifts in favour of reform. Quite simply, at present it is not an electoral winner.

What Andrew Walker meticulously fails to mention is that any attempt from Yingluck to reform 112 will result in her being kicked out of office either by Yellow Shirts/PAD massive and disruptive protests or by military force (most likely both, in that order) and her being deemed an outlaw, perhaps even imprisoned.

Actually, from an electoral strategy point of view, the Pheua Thai has a lot to gain by neutering 112, in terms of political campaigning, and there is little doubt that Yingluck’s electoral base – a substantial majority of the electorate – will easily adhere to such a reform if the PM and the Pheua Thai could openly campaign for it.

It’s hard to believe that a scholar like Mr Walker would not be aware of those elements.

The point that Andrew MacGregor Marshall has been making all along is simple, clear and unexceptionable.

When journalists cannot tell the whole truth or when they have to resort to ambiguities and coded language because of the LM law, they should inform their readers that this is the case. What could be simpler?

Whether or not AMM did this when he was based in Thailand and working at Reuters is absolutely irrelevant. His suggestion for a “health hazard” label is for the here and now.

I do not think that journalists need to worry about strategies to prevent themselves being seen as interfering western busybodies who don’t understand things. All they need to do is tell the truth to the best of their abilities and to make clear what limits their ability to tell the truth.

We can’t predict whether truth-telling will result in repression or in liberation. But the job of journalists and academic is to tell the truth as best they can grasp it and with as many of its nuances as they can grasp. Truth has its own value.

Firstly, the following point made in the piece by AW: QUOTE “An elected government like that of Yingluck Shinawatra will only move on lèse-majesté when the electoral cost-benefit ratio shifts in favour of reform. Quite simply, at present it is not an electoral winner…” UNQUOTE, in my view over simplifies the complexity in which the elected government finds itself and its constraints over moving towards reform. I know members of PTP who would like to see constitutional reform and changes to 112. It is precisely because of the “electoral cost-benefit ration” mentioned in the piece that PTP cannot move [at least quickly] to amend the constitution because it would start a revolt from the far right (looking for the excuse). But to do nothing at all is, in my view, equally inexcusable.
second point, Thaksin’s so-called “War on Drugs” is hardly comparable to the issue at hand. It could be argued that this was conducted (rightly or wrongly and aside from the dreadful consequences) with an electoral mandate/mass support, even the praise of the king in a 2003 birthday speech.

I don’t agree with your conclusions. The fact is that more Thai people are now against 112 as a result of criticism of the monarchy and lese majeste law from foreign journalists. Likewise, less Thai people now support the PAD cranks.

But I do agree with you that foreigners need Thai people to help them in their fight against 112. Without more of this support, little will change.

“… Sulak Sivaraksa was asked what kind of international support was it that managed to get his LM charge dismissed in 1984…. His answer intimated that it was subtle behind the scenes pressure that worked in his case…”.

Not having been at the recent seminar and not being privy to any backroom dealing back in 1984, I can’t comment directly on Sulak’s intimations. However, as someone who was involved in the campaign supporting Sulak, journalist Chatcharin Chaiwat and academic Preecha Piampongsarn, I can vouch for the fact that there was an international campaign.

On 25 August that year Matichon reported on a letter to the then Prem government signed by academics from several countries during the International Conference on Thai Studies. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the letter or of the whole Matichon article. However, the article comments on a news conference the previous day that included myself, Craig Reynolds and John Girling.

At that conference, Thai academics specifically requested that the foreign participants take a stand on these cases. Of course, some participants refused to sign, but quite a number did.

That this international intervention had at least some impact was revealed the next year when ANU had an unannounced visit from, to the best of my recollection, the palace administration. The meeting was with those who had signed the 1984 letter and it was a kind of semi-official explanation of the cases. I seem to recall that Sulak’s case was explained in terms that amounted to him needing to be taught a lesson.

I may be wrong, but by that time I think all three had probably been released.

I just noticed that Sulak’s Wikipedia page states: “The foreign contacts he made while in exile proved beneficial when Sivaraksa was arrested in 1984 for lese majesty, causing international protests which pressured the government to release him.”

Thanks for amplifying that point. I didn’t feel qualified at the time to go beyond what I said but several folk have indicated additional dimensions, including worries that if the case went ahead it would ruin the king’s health.

The point you make about foreign contacts made whilst in exile is interesting. I am not aware of any foreign travel having been made by Somyot so do not know if he has a similar privilege of contacts. Nonetheless he is a member of the labour movement and will not easily be forgotten outside Thailand.

Sulak told me a few months ago that he was threatened with another lese majeste charge over these revelations. He says he told Anand Panyarachun that he would fight it in court, and he thought a lese majeste case over 1945 would be the final straw for the king’s health.

I agree with literally all of the arguments put forward by the commentators above. However, I think a lack of definition of the issue is blurring the debate. In order to discuss what foreign journalists should do/must not do, we first need a better understanding of what it actually means if a foreign journalists wades into the murky waters of LM.

Seen from the perspective of the six groups I outlined above, does the commentary:

1. Show solidarity for/ campaign for the release of an individual accused of/ convicted of LM?
2. Raise awareness for/ campaign for the reform of Art.112/ CCA as a constraint to the right to freedom of expression?
3. Comment on LM as a symbolic proxy for the role of the monarchy, in other words engage in the political struggle over the political order of Thailand.

The stakes/risks associated with stepping into these three battlefields vary widely. Hence, as self-censorship has a lot to do with the fact that the “red lines” are not clear, differentiating between these three cases can serve as a yardstick of how big of a risk you are actually taking (and, btw, assess the impact a foreign contribution is likely to make).

Marek, you are continuing to frame this discussion in terms of whether foreigners should get involved in a political battle over Article 112, and if so, how they should go about it. Andrew Walker has framed the debate in the same way.

However, as a journalist, I think journalists should approach the issue from a different perspective. Whatever their views on activism by foreigners in a country not their own, journalists’ foremost professional obligation is to report what is happening. This is an obligation that cannot be ducked or suspended until things get safer and more conducive to unbiased reporting.

In my view, once journalists in Thailand understand and decide to honour this professional obligation, it will naturally lead them to oppose harsh enforcement of Article 112. But the route to this position is not taking sides in a Thai political struggle. It is a professional necessity.

Andrew,
while I very much sympathise with your straight-forward position, I think this time it is you who is ducking the question. Of course, the duty of any journalist (foreign or Thai) is to report what is happening, and not “campaign” (@tom hoy).
However, as you all know, the personal consequences for this straight-forward reporting will depend on the way Thai authorities interpret it. In other words: what you might (rightdully!) deem straightforwrd reporting of the facts may alreay cross the line. And every (foreign or Thai) journalist based in Thailand is aware of that risk.
So my position is: instead of denying that risk, it makes more sense to spell out thresholds where you may cross the red line, so everyone can decide what personal risk they are going to take.
I read your idea about the “health warning” against this background, and agree that this is a good idea.

And still nobody has answered the question: What would the FCC and journalists do if you, and by you I mean you as a person, were gaoled for the comments of others. Would you expect condemnation by the foreign media or just silence and excuses? I know what I’d want.

This may be of interest to readers of this post who can read Thai (apology to those who can’t):

I’ve just posted a almost never-before-seen document concerning the LM case against Vira Musikkaphong (now a Red Shirt leader) in 1988.

The author of the letter was a high-ranking member of the Royal Secretariat. He wrote the letter to one of the judges of the case, in which he claimed that although HMK didn’t expresses his wish to have Vira prosecuted “directly”, he “must have felt extremely displeased” (with Vira).

I just learned about the issue from [redacted]. S/he is on the panel responsible in the case in which the prosecutor is the plaintiff against Mr. Wira Musikapong. Even though it is not the explicit wish of the king, I however request to firmly inform you that the king is very displeased. But it would be improper for the king to speak directly. If you wish to learn further details, please call me directly at home (telephone number [redacted] after 21.00 daily).

Sincerely,

[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] Bureau of the Royal Household

***

A few notes:
* “improper” is an imperfect choice for one of the “ไม่ตรง”s above. The entire sentence is “เพียงแต่ไม่ตรงมีพระกระแสออกมาโดยตรงเท่านั้น”
* For those of you who, like me, are glaringly unfamiliar with ราชาศัพท์, this short pdf is a helpful reference: http://tinyurl.com/dx96hgu

I’m in full agreement with Andrew, and have already reached these conclusions before myself. I think it’s good he’s written this article to bring open debate to this issue.

If Thais perceive anti-112 efforts as farang interference, then it could be counter-productive. At the same time many of us are afraid of Thai prison, and lifetime banishment from the country we love.

It’s a bit like how the US influenced the Arab Spring, keeping it hush-hush considering the counter-productive issues that would arise if Arabs knew the ‘capitalist pigs’ were influencing them.

As such, my own efforts have been to act as a support role for Thais willing to act by showing them how to get around website censorship using software, translating, and posting specifically selected videos/links on a very popular Thai site I run (and others) to influence opinions.

The role of all journalists should not involve cleaving open a situation for expose and glorification, but reporting on the situation itself for others. You yourself are becoming the story! That’s not journalism, it’s tabloid cheese. Journalists in Thailand often don’t know what the hell is going on with a 112 case, beyond “so-and-so has been arrested for this and that. That makes X number this year”. You could fill the first five pages of the Bangkok Post with 112 speculation (not fact), but would that be reporting? It’s a prickly pear.

You can’t make news out of history. If you wrote a story that was about a current event, and then included all the contextual pieces that you’ve gathered — that would be wonderful journalism. It would be better if you chronicled your exposes in a gonzo manner! You versus the Thai establishment, but you’re quick to deny that’s the case.

Mr Marshall, do you ever wonder that you might be the one being a wally, and that the other journalists remaining in Thailand, might not all be callous hacks living the easy life? Mr Marshall, do you have respect for the Thai monarchy?

Perhaps a better question would be: Should a monarchy that still allows people to be locked up for decades in its name be respected?
(and if they truly cannot do anything about it, why don’t they at least speak up about it at every opportunity?)

I am still confused why anybody should be asked to “respect” a (any) monarchy, or any other political structure.

Quality comment or not?150

#26.1.1.2.2

Indo Ojek

Posted February 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Nganadeeleg and Srithanonchai

Your responses are threats to national security. Please desist.

As for Mr Marshall, when he is under the spotlight, the good cop will ask about his alienation and the bad cop will ask about whether or not he respects the monarchy. When Mr Marshall replies “huh?” they will throw away the key so he is forever lost in his polemics.

When I said I agreed with ‘Andrew’, I meant to say Mr Walker. Too many Andrews lol . . .

It’s not a question of what ‘role’ a journalist should play, but how to deal with the issue of self-censorship. I’ve thought about solutions for awhile but have no silver bullet.

The ‘best’ idea I had, which some of you above have mentioned, was that journalists would all post a disclaimer saying something like “Censored by 112″ or “this article was self-censored as to not violate Article 112″. And this would either be highlighted in a big image on each article written, or within the text, or something. The reader will then have to figure out what that means on his own.

That said, there are issues with this. The act of saying you self-censored is itself probably illegal (given a recent 112 case). Certain “bad” individuals (and officials) may target reporters that publicly claim self-censorship, either by blocking the url, refusing to be interviewed by you, or other much worse things. It would be assumed you are anti-112, and therefore paid by Thaksin and conspiring to overthrow a certain somebody.

You could also write under another pen name, but it would be hard to build a new trustworthy reputation without years of work. This is the option I chose, but still need to self-censor so my posts aren’t deleted and my sites aren’t blocked. That would be counter productive.

As I said, I have no real solutions.

But, I remember just three years ago when 112 was mostly unknown and entirely under the public radar. Now most people in Thailand are familiar with it, and some are starting to have negative feelings towards it. So I’m optimistic things are going in the right direction, albeit slowly.

“The careers of journalists and academics who work on Thailand are dependent on ongoing access to it. The idea that they should give up that access in order to speak truth to power is noble, but it is unrealistic.”

Even though I agree with many of your points I’d disagree with this particular argument. Foreign academics who choose to study Thailand usually do so voluntarily. They are not forced into specialising on it and therefore nobody’s career depends on access to Thailand.

But if someone does decide to focus on Thailand – usually fully aware of the anti-democratic role the Thai monarchy is playing as an ideology and as an institution – there is no excuse for remaining silent on issues related to the royal institution. I think you have every right to expect other colleagues to say or write “things about the monarchy”, whether these colleagues are junior or senior scholars.

Safe to say from afar, and for academics with jobs at foreign universities, but a lot more difficult for foreign academics who have been living in Thailand for decades.

What might once have been a choice (and a much less rational one than suggested in the comment) has long turned into a constraint.

The comment actually is similar to what conservative Thais like to say to foreign academics: If you don’t like it here, just leave (note that Immigration procedures assume that you have just arrived in Thailand, though one internal form states how many times an applicant has renewed his/her one-year visa).

Why not stop reporting on Thai politics and economy for a while, if it is anyway difficult or impossible to report the “truth”. Leave Thailand to the colorful boulevard press for a while. Thailand is strongly integrated and exposed internationally. The worst that can happen under such circumstances is that it is not mentioned anymore. In fact, I doubt that much would be lost anyway. Those who are interested get the information anyway (most of the journalists base their reports on blggs as well).
For academics, a similar case might be simply not to participate in official conferences in Thailand, as it becomes risky to engage in open discourse.
Most of all, however, we have to understand that th whole 112 issue has nothing much to do with the monarchy and HMS the reigtning king of Thailand.

If foreign academics and journalists stopped their reporting for a while, they would be surprised to find, after a while, that life still went on without them in Thailand (despite all their “concern”). So, lets be realistic and focus our attention on what is really important for Thailand: direct foreign investment, the importation of consumer goods, and tourism. This way, Thailand would be at the forefront of all those progressive countries that are adopting the “Chinese model.” Ha!

Without complete freedom of the press and the people of Thailand, every govt would continue to cover up rapes and tourist deaths in hotels. Why? is this a national security issue? Thailand will continue to get foreign investment until the next military coup. Foreign investment really only affects the rich who would get richer through corruption. If Thailand really wants to be a progressive country then they would scrap all LM laws, seriously tackle corruption and the military immunities they grant themselves after having coups. Instead, the powerful always get a free pass. The term “National Security” really means security for the corrupt and elite in Thailand and has got nothing to do with actual national security. The king and others covered by the LM laws are of course not involved in politics or other bad practices that the elite love to play around with.Perhaps I should wear a T shirt with “progressive thailand against 112″ written on it.

QUOTE(Andrew Marshall):”I don’t know of any other country in the world in which foreign journalists are so obediently censoring themselves and failing to be honest with their readers and viewers about this self-censorship.”
Seconded. An important observation.

“One line of argument that has emerged in the flurry of debate in recent weeks is that non-Thai journalists and academics must lead the campaign…”

Who is making this argument? This emphasis on Thai vs. non-Thai, local vs. foreign, is unfortunate as it undermines the universal nature of what the campaign against 112 is about: the *universal* right to freedom of expression.